It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Putin: USA 'shaped the world' according to its interests

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 10:43 AM
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Yeah, I don't think so. Not even in the same league.

In any case, if the figure of 60 million dead is accurate that would mean that an average of 2 million were killed during each year of Stalin’s horrific reign – or 40,000 every week (even during “peacetime”).

Thus, Stalin’s regime represented a machinery of killing that history – excluding, perhaps, China under Chairman Mao Tse-Tung -- has never witnessed.

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 11:10 AM
a reply to: JimTSpock yeah. Difference is Stalin was killing his own people, and that was some time ago. The us is killing everyone else's people now. There were little to no casualties in Crimea giving lie to the idea that it was forcibly annexed, as opposed to the many killed in western ukraine during their "legitimate democratic power transfer". And the deaths in the "invasion" of Georgia don't even come close to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Libya. Russia "invaded" to end hostilities and left. Unlike our invasions which are not about other countries hostilities, where we go in, overthrow governments, steal all their gold, secure our interests in their natural resources, and leave them in a shambles for the foreseeable future.

edit on 27-10-2014 by pexx421 because: typo

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 11:28 AM
a reply to: pexx421

I'd agree with some of that and the USA's attempts to export democracy have certainly gone pear shaped. I think the war in Afghanistan was justified after 9/11. But the war in Iraq Gulf War 2 and the so called WMDs? What was that about. And now back to Iraq with another coalition of the willing to fight more Islamic extremists, ISIS, and the destablization of the whole region of the middle east by the Arab spring. Egypt, Libya, Syria and Iraq are all war and anarchy. It's a complex region and clearly the US and the west don't fully understand it's complexities. Should the west just keep out and let it burn or try to intervene?

I think we are seeing an important period in history unfold with the middle east being reshaped. The west doesn't really know how to deal with it and they seem like they don't know what they're doing at times. It's very hard to know how it will play out but I think war and conflict within the Islamic world in the middle east will continue for quite some time to come and real peace and stability for the region will be difficult to achieve. A question is can these middle east countries have a stable democracy and if not what is the alternative? War, anarchy and Islamic extremism?
edit on 27-10-2014 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 12:14 PM
a reply to: JimTSpock The war in Afghanistan was justified how? I am not trying to be difficult, just to clarify ideas. Afghanistan was not Osama bin ladens country. Indeed, every single person we claimed was involved with 9/11 was from Saudi Arabia. In fact, Afghanistan offered us Osama twice prior to that, once to Clinton and once to Bush, and offered him again if we gave them evidence of his involvement in 9/11. But rather than provide said evidence (if it existed) we chose to invade instead. I think the conflict we have is that we represent two different paradigms. You come from the paradigm, I think, that America is truly attempting to export democracy, which seems to mean forcing other nations to adopt peace through bombing and theft....a truly bizarre concept to me....and that you think the failings are in our lack of understanding the dynamics and variables. My paradigm, however, is that democracy has nothing to do with our reasons for engagement in other countries. We take every action based upon the motive of profit for our corporations and for those in Washington. Further, our leaders fully grasp the complexities, and the results that come from them are exactly the results we were aiming for. Destabilization of the middle east preventing nations there from working out their issues together, because we fear that at some point in the future they might present a unified front which would be a counter to our power to exploit their people and their resources. The same exact thing we do in Africa through AFRICOM, and the reason behind our destruction of qaddafi and Libya, and the same reason we are so strongly against Venezuela, Bolivia, etc in south America. These are three key regions where we make massive profit and draw power and dominance by keeping them broken up and isolated in order to control their resources, and all our actions in those areas, and the results, fully support the picture that I am presenting. To extrapolate further, many of our actions now have been destabilizing and overthrowing nations that had strong ties to china and/or Russia, and the ability to provide them with critical resources as well, and our actions have worked strongly to cease the flow of these resources (oil and so on) to them to stymie their growing and advancing economic power, in order to minimize their ability to ever stand strong as a counter to our dominance. We grow exceedingly angry over china's expansion into Africa and south America, even though their agreements with those nationions are much more equitable than our exploitative policies, because it draws them from our control, and allows them greater autonomy for self determination, which is anathema to American doctrine and foreign policy goals. We also grow angry with russias peaceful and mutually beneficial economic ties to western Europe for the same reason, and this, I think, is the main reason for the actions we took in Ukraine, along with trying to end russias plans for a pipeline bypassing western control. As for Afghanistan.....prior to 9/11 unocal, a California based energy company was working very strongly with Afghanistan for an oil pipeline contract, to be worth 600 billion, I believe. Afghanistan had decided to turn them down and go with an argentinan company for the work. The higher ups in unocal included Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, and hamad Karzai as well. Also standing to profit from the deal was Halliburton which Bush and Cheney had strong financial ties in. Afghan leaders were told that if they did not agree to the deal there would be boots on the ground in one month. This was in august of 2001.

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 12:49 PM
a reply to: pexx421

Export democracy is a figure of speech and bit more complicated. They tried it in Afghanistan and Iraq but obviously that was not the reason for war. I agree with some of what you're saying and I work in the banking and finance sector so may have a bit of a different perspective. I'll just say global stability and global economic growth are good for the US economy not the other way round. Yes there are a lot of shady deals and contracts and corruption, certainly not unique to the US. Russia is a real star in this area. Cheney and Haliburton is a study in shady goings on.

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 12:50 PM
a reply to: pexx421


The Afghanistan War was Planned Months Before the 9/11 Attacks


posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:46 PM
EU politicians not unanimous over Ukraine's future after parliamentary elections

Ukraine’s newly-elected parliament is unlikely to restore Ukraine to stability, Italian politician and journalist, Giulietto Chiesa, has told TASS.

“Stability is still very far away. Apparently, after the elections the prevailing presence of right-wing parties inside the Verkhovna Rada will be used as a pretext for an offensive (against Donetsk and Luhansk regions),” Chiesa said.

He voiced the fear that Ukrainian politicians will be inviting pro-Western forces to join the conflict. “There is Poland and there are the Baltic republics. Apparently, there are people who may be preparing all this,” he said.

Chiesa sees the United States as the main actor in the Ukrainian conflict. “It has engineered the crisis in Ukraine to provoke Russia. It has used Ukraine as a big stick in order to break Russia,” he believes. “The aim has not been achieved yet, so it will be moving further on. I have the impression that the US leadership is determined to stop at nothing.”

A solution of the Ukrainian crisis may be achieved “only if Europe develops the awareness of the danger looming over it, because it would be an operation not just against Russia, but against Europe as well.”


posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:31 PM
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Giulietto Chiesa

Giulietto Chiesa (Italian pronunciation: [dʒuˈljetto ˈkjɛza]; born on 4 September 1940 in Acqui Terme, Province of Alessandria, Italy) is an Italian journalist and politician, and was a Member of the European Parliament for North-West with the Independent - Di Pietro-Occhetto List Civil Society. Originally he represented Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, since 2006 - Party of European Socialists. Chiesa sat on the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade.

Chiesa held a number of important positions in the Italian Communist Party before it was dissolved in 1991.

He was a substitute for the Committee on Culture and Education and a member of the Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee.

In the 2009 European Parliament elections, Chiesa was a candidate on the ForHRUL list in Latvia.[1][2]

He is an active supporter of various conspiracy theories, about September 11 attacks, chemtrails, and HAARP[3]

2008 Russian-Georgian Conflict

Regarding 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, Chiesa stated that "Russia did precisely what had to be done." He also stated that "I think Europe is partly responsible for this war: by unconditionally supporting Georgia’s president Mikheil Saakashvili and his claims in South Ossetia and Abkhazia." Regarding media coverage of the war, Chiesa stated that "the information given by the media is a shame for the west. Western news channels broadcast images and titles that were politically biased. Some claimed Russia wanted to conquer Georgia, although no evidence whatsoever backs up that argument. Mikheil Saakashvili was portrayed as the unfortunate victim of Big Bad Putin, and very often, images of Tskhinvali razed by bombs were not shown. It is the worst coverage I have seen since the war in Iraq."[11]

Apparently ITARR-TASS likes to pick who it interviews so they can get the soundbites they want.

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:17 PM
So? He is a politician with a set of views. Whats your point? You say ITARR-TASS likes to pick interviews to get the desired soundbytes. Does that make them any different than FOX, CNN, NBC, etc? At least its not like he is not like a former head of.....I don't know, say Goldman sachs, being interviewed as an expert on why the banks need bailed out. Or say, an ex Monsanto CEO speaking as a health professional on why GMO's are healthier for you. He's a person. He has an opinion. It may be right and it may be wrong, that's where critical thinking comes in. Hate to say it....but as americans, our critical thinking is most likely stunted compared to other nations where people actually get educated, rather than indoctrinated. Speaking of critical the Georgia incident.....who started killing people first? Who fired the first shots? Who first drove tanks into a city and started a massacre? Oh. Yeah. The US puppet, saakashvilli. In Kiev, who fired the first shots? Who incinerated civilians trapped in a building? Oh....yeah. People on the payroll of the US.

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:51 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra


...they are not going to pick some Western propaganda spewing puppet of course...

...what did you expect ?

...DOH !

Captain Obvious points received !

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 06:10 PM
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Of course not.. They will pick a Pro Russian stooge for their propaganda.

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 06:48 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra
Again, which leaves us with critical thinking to figure which side is which.... Which it's really quite simple. Lack of victims= no annexation or invasion. Lots of victims or money involved= aggression.

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 09:19 PM

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: Xcathdra
Again, which leaves us with critical thinking to figure which side is which.... Which it's really quite simple. Lack of victims= no annexation or invasion. Lots of victims or money involved= aggression.

Or we can simplify it even more...

Russia invaded Ukraine.

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 10:18 PM
a reply to: Hellas

When did Russia shape the world according to its interests?

Parking its nukes in Cuba for one.

Arming the Viet Cong is another one.

The invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s.

The invasion of Ukraine most recently.

Before that Georgia.

Then we have all those 'soviet' satellte states that were apart of the CCCP/USSR.

Then there is the Russian backing of Assad, and Iran.

Oh, and how can anyone forget Russia didn't invent the nukes they stole it from the US.

Almost forgot the Russian invasion of Iran during WW2.

And then there was the occupation of Berlin for over 5 decades.

Putin is the pot calling the kettle black.

Why anyone give him any credibility is beyond ludicrous.

Hell the guy is ex KGB is nothing but a mob boss now.

edit on 27-10-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 12:54 AM
a reply to: neo96

You forgot the most important one : BRICS.

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:03 AM
a reply to: neo96

And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Russia has existed much longer than the U.S has. If you want to talk about Russian attempts to influence it's neighbors we could take it back 500 years or more.

If we're talking purely post WWII there are still well over 100 cases that can be used to demonstrate how Russia has attempted to use it's power to influence geopolitical events. There isn't even a debate about that amongst anyone with even a highschool understanding of history (from either side of either the atlantic or pacific).

Pure ignorance to suggest Russia is some sort of saintly nation that has never tried to assert it's influence on the global stage. It's own efforts to do so have consistently come back to bite it in the ass much the same way the U.S's efforts have.

If this site is about denying ignorance, I have just denied it. Still waiting for the OP to prove history wrong.

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 03:29 AM
a reply to: DeadSeraph

It's own efforts to do so have consistently come back to bite it in the ass much the same way the U.S's efforts have.

At least we are on the same page with that kind of crap which needs to stop.

So he might be hypocritical, but you acknowledge he`s right.

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 07:31 AM
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

No, not at all.

If the subject was "disastrous foreign policy decisions, and how Russia has made as many of them as the U.S has", then yes, I would agree he was right.

But that's not what he said. For that matter, it's not what Putin said, either.
edit on 28-10-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 01:10 PM
a reply to: DeadSeraph

He said America is making decisions to shape the world according to their own interests and regardless if Russia is doing the same, he`s right about US doing it.

And the following statement can only be explained one way, "If the subject was disastrous foreign policy decisions, and how Russia has made as many of them as the U.S has then yes, I would agree he was right, and that is you confirming the US is doing them. That statement of you doesn`t leave room for denying US isn`t doing them, because you confirm US does disastrous foreign policy decisions, and even if Putin leaves out Russia`s own disastrous foreign policy decisions, it still stands the US does them.
edit on 28 10 2014 by BornAgainAlien because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 09:18 PM

originally posted by: Hellas
Putin: USA 'shaped the world' according to its interests

Vladimir Putin lashed out of the United States for destabilizing the world order of checks and balances for its own gains.

Speaking in the city of Sochi, he said that, “the system of international relations needed some changes, but the USA, who believe they were the winners of the Cold War have not seen the need for this.” The Russian President added that Washington has been trying to create the world “for their own gains.”

Putin also hit out at the West for, “closing their eyes to the encroachment of international terrorism in Russia and countries in central Asia. He says the United States has been guilty of sponsoring extremist groups.

“I am not tired of being astounded how our partners have been guilty of making the same mistakes time and again. They have in the past sponsored Islamic extremists who were battling against the Soviet Union, which took place in Afghanistan. It was because of this the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was created,” the Russian President added.

He also touched upon the fight against ISIS. He criticized those who buy oil from terrorists thus contributing to their funds.

Putin also hit out at the numerous sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and the West saying this was a mistake which has a knock-on effect on everyone.

“The USA, which has implemented sanctions against Russia, is cutting down the branches, upon which they are sitting,” he said.

Putin put the blame on the US for the destruction of the system of talks about the reduction and control of weapons. He said that many countries don't see any other choice at the moment to preserve its sovereignty but "to make a nuclear bomb."

Russia has been all for the continuation of talks about the reduction of nuclear arsenals and according to President Putin, Moscow is ready for serious talks, but without “double standards".

Finally he calls it like it is!

I'll be posting updates.

Of course the US is doing this. This is the entire point of our foreign policy since WWII. As he says, cold war thinking.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in